Conversation Analysis
Conversation Analysis Conversation is absolutely instilled throughout every corner of every day for the totality of our lives. Whether it is on your favorite morning talk show, a casual encounter with a roommate, or admitting an undying love to your significant other, our lives, along with our realities, are entirely shaped by the conversations we allow ourselves to become continually engulfed in.
With so much of our daily lives revolving around the conversations in which we are a part of it becomes clear that the underlining meanings, or messages, of these conversations could very well be the motor that keeps our realities in a state of progress. Conversation is interactional, philosophical, emotional, and entirely necessary in order to fulfill and express any type of accomplishment. When these conversations, these parts of our lives, are put under a trained mental microscope with the motive of finding a better understanding of the interaction taking place, it is referred to as Conversation Analysis (CA).
Conversation Analysis’ method is aimed at determining the methods and resources that the interactional participants use and rely on to produce interactional contributions while also making sense of the contributions of others (Schegloff, 2007). What follows in this essay is an in-depth look at the practices and methods of Conversation Analysis showing that a better understanding of one’s conversation(s) will ultimately lead to a better understanding of one’s reality; while also showing that every utterance fulfilling some kind of act, or task, and is entirely motive driven toward the accomplishment of one of these tasks.
Conversation Analysis is the study of social interaction, embracing both verbal and non-verbal cues and conduct. As a field of study, Conversation Analysis was developed in the late 1960’s by Sociologist Harvey Sacks with the help of his associates Emanuel Schegloff and Gail Jefferson. Harvey Sacks is commonly regarded to as the ‘father’ of the particular study. Conversation Analysis is frequently embodied into the works of sociology, anthropology, linguistics, speech communication, and psychology just to name a few.
Although similar, Conversation Analysis differs from Discourse Analysis because its focus is squarely on the processes involved in social interaction, and does not include the work of written texts (Sidnell, 2010). To create an accurate analysis of conversation the interaction should not be viewed from a far or from a perspective that is external to the participants own reasoning and understanding of their circumstances and communication (Sidnell & Stivers, 2012).
The analysis in which we are going to use as an example for the remainder of the essay focuses primarily on the functions of turn taking, adjacency pairs, repair, and speech acts; all common perspectives in the field of Conversation Analysis. The format of a conversation can be relatively easy to understand; one party communicates, the remaining parties respond in somewhat of a positive feedback loop; meaning that the feedback loop of the conversational system is continually going around with the addition of new information and new utterances, thus a positive feedback loop.
This way of conversation is simply called ‘turn-taking’ implying that it is not a lecture style of communication with primarily one party conducting the conversation, rather an interaction where one party’s conversation is influenced and working together with a separate party’s. After establishing the turn taking method of conversation we are able to take it one step deeper and analyze the chosen utterances. While turn taking the two parties will be exchanging what are called ‘adjacency pairs;’ adjacency pairs are composed of two utterances, one after the other.
The first pair provokes a response from the second party, such as: ‘Hello, how are you? ” could provoke a response such as: “Fine, how are you? ” That is an adjacency pair. When the conversation fails to provide a relevant response to the pair; for example: If “Hello, how are you? ” were to be responded to with “My favorite color is purple. ” The responder has failed to provide a relevant response and has done what is considered to be a breach of conversational maxim, or the maximum of relevance. If such a breach were to happen one can resort to what is called ‘Repair. Repair is a self-righting mechanism that describes how parties in conversation deal with problems in speaking, hearing, or understanding. If the previous example of “My favorite color is purple” was said due to a misinterpretation of the required response to repair the conversation they might immediately say, “Oh, I’m terribly sorry I must have misheard you, I’m doing well how are you? ” Lastly, this essay will focus on what are called ‘Speech Acts;’ the main goal of the utterance, the underlining message of the conversation.
For example, telling someone that you will meet them at 7:00 is creating a commitment, a promise, making an arrangement; it isn’t simply just words pieced together. Speech acts include promising, ordering, responding, greeting, warning, inviting, asking, congratulating, etc. , and are the task in which the conversation is attempting to achieve. These perspectives of conversation analysis are just a few of the many factors that go into the structuring and fulfillment of a successful conversation.
Turn taking is one of the easier factors of conversation analysis to point out to one who has yet to gain much experience in the field of communications. In the following transcript T is asking E why he has set up his laptop to record what they are talking about: [0:00 – 0:30] T: Takin’ pics? E: No. I’m just recording what we’re saying. T: Does it matter what we say? E: No, doesn’t matter. T: We can say whatever the f*ck we want? E: Uh-[huh] T: [just like that? ]
E: Yeah, haha, we don’t even have to be, like, talking the whole time, just has to be 20 minutes worth of time. T: Soo what is this for? E: I get extra credit for my communications class T: you just get conversation from us? E: uh-huh! haha T: What’s up Commi’s?! This is an example of turn taking because T is not lecturing E about something, he is seeking information from E that is relevant to the conversation, and relevant to T’s reality. The two conversers are using adjacency pairs while speaking to each other in order to keep the onversation flowing in a positive feedback loop, while also not breaching the maxim of relevance. The conversation holds adjacency pairs because the utterances from the two conversing follow one another, and anything E said would not be relevant to the reality of T without T first asking E what was going on with the laptop. T had an underlining task of seeking information through his conversation; he successfully used a Speech Act in order to gain the information in which he sought, thus having a clearer understanding of his reality at the time of the conversation.
Repair comes into a conversation when the feedback loop of those conversing becomes skewed; a misunderstanding of an utterance from one party to another can alter the outcome and flow of the conversation until the party that misunderstood an utterance and altered the feedback of the conversation has done repair work to reposition the conversation back into a positive feedback loop. The example in the transcript comes into play when E walks into T and J’s room when J is trying to study.
E realizes that his presence in the conversation that T and J were having about the material they were studying is beginning to interrupt the flow of their conversation. E begins his repair work to the conversation: [12:00-13:47] J: I’m going to go study T: good old study sesh J: You can leave that in our room if you want, while we study haha E: I’ll walk back and fourth (p 3. 0) Did you end up selling those clubs dude? T: Yeah, Yogi bought them E: Dam[n] T: [It would] have been a good deal E: (p 8. 0] Connor how was your day?
C: Sick! I did a lot of studying. Now I’m helping out with some extra credit J: Excellent! E: Your day was excellent Jack? J: No! my day was pretty shitty, shitty. E: haha (p 7. 0) You want this door closed? J: Yeah, thanks. E: alright sorry guys, peace J: Give him an A! E: I need an A! haha bye guys Once E realizes that his two roommates, T and J, are studying and that he has interrupted their concentration with the video on the lap top he begins to start the repair process of the conversation, and his present reality.
E realizes that he shouldn’t be intruding on T and J and by uttering ‘Do you guys want this door closed” he is implying that the interruption is understood and he is going to repair the situation by leaving them alone and closing the door on his way out. The repair work is understood by J and he thanks E for the notion and sends him off by telling the camera that E should get an A for his extra credit work that was mentioned in the previous transcription.
Repair work is vital to a misunderstanding in a conversation, if a situation arises where repair work is needed but goes unnoticed, the misunderstanding of the conversation will lead to a further misunderstanding of the present reality. Speech acts are the underlining meanings of our conversation; they are the tasks in which we are trying to fulfill through our interaction. Speech acts can be broken down into three categories: locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary acts.
Locutionary is the actual utterance and its phonetic meaning, ilocutionary is its intended significance, and perlocutionary is the actual effect on the conversation and present reality. In the following transcript E goes back into T and J’s room to try and find information about golf clubs. He is not just trying to strike up a conversation; he is seeking information and is attempting to accomplish a task: [16:47 – 19:30] E: Jack do you have any old golf clubs? J: Naah, only the ones I use. E: Does Nick? J: Nope. E: fuck
T: John has old ones, but they’re pretty nice. And I don’t think, I can [ask him] E:[Yeah, if he’s looking to sell them] E: definitely let me know, ‘cause I’m trying to go. T: If he does I can definitely let you know. E: awesome thanks, I’m trying to go. The locutionary meaning of E’s utterance is easy to understand; he is seeking a way to buy golf clubs from his roommates if they happen to have an old set. The illocutionary in this particular example matches the meaning of the locutionary as its intended significance is to find some new golf clubs.
The actual effect on the conversation, the perlocutionary act, causes J and T to respond to E with their answers, as it would be in their better interest to sell some old golf clubs. E uses speech acts to try and acquire the information in which he sought. The topic of golf clubs did not just happen to come up in conversation, but was purposely brought into the realities of T and J by E through E’s search for information. Speech acts revolve around every conversation and interaction taking place throughout our lives.
Even in random day-to-day gossip speech acts are the motor that drive these interactions in a forward motion of gaining new information. When one better understands the underlining meanings of the conversations throughout their day there is no doubt that that better understanding of communication leads directly to a better understanding of one’s reality. Our realities are entirely shaped by and understood through the words in which we use to describe them.
The motives behind our interactions are what shapes the conversations into what they become; whether we are trying to be humorous and crack a joke, give a serious speech, show empathy toward someone, argue our opinions back and fourth, or seeking information these certain motives are what craft our interactions with one another. When one better understands these motives they will better understand their conversation, have a better understanding of how to accomplish tasks through their conversation, and ultimately lead to a better understanding of one’s present reality. References
Schegloff, E. (2007). Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis, volume 1. Retrieved from http://www. sscnet. ucla. edu/soc/faculty/schegloff/pubs/index. php (Schegloff, 2007). Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation analysis: An introduction. Retrieved from http://individual. utoronto. ca/jsidnell/OverviewResearch. html (Sidnell, 2010). Sidnell, J. , & Stivers, T. (2012). handbook of conversation analysis. boston: Wiley-blackwell.. Retrieved from http://media. wiley. com/product_data/excerpt/82/14443320/1444332082-12. pdf (Sidnell & Stivers, 2012)
